This is soooooo typical of Branch and Baker. This is in the top 10 bonehead moves they have made - and that's saying a lot. The obvious "thought" process was we cant have a team in the Memorial Cup w/o 2 regular goalies and thus we will lift the suspension. I understand the thought but....If the same suspension is made at the end of the regular season and the team with the suspended goalie end up missing the playoffs by one game - how is that any different?

Had they wanted to exercise this option the smarter option would have been to say "suspended indefinitely", then its their option to determine what/when that means. Sure we could all guess as to the underhanded reason, but its not public knowledge.

I for one think the 8 games was a bit harsh, but THEY made the call, THEY knew the situation and thus THEY need to stay with it. This backsliding re-enforces that Branch and Baker are hypocrites on their stated policy of player safety. If they were sincere, it's simple. We don't care if you only have one goalie, player safety trumps all and the 8 games stands.

I cant wait until next year when someone else gets x games and the question then comes back "is that the real x games or the Storalz/Knights version of x games"?

or, when one of the other 3 teams files a protest for icing an ineligible player and asks for a hearing with all 3 league commissions. If I'm the W or Q team coach, I've already got my protest sheet filled out to give the Referee as soon as I see the game sheet before the game -ie we are playing the game under protest.

Sure, Branch as Head of the CHL will prevail, but that circumstance will make the Mem Cup more of a circus than enforcing a suspension and leaving London to deal with the consequences.

Branch and Baker have brought all the flack this decision will bring squarely on themselves.

Re: Stolarz suspension

MagicMan wrote:From everything I have seen that has been written about that O'Keefe was suspended indefinitely and they lifted the suspension.

For some unknown reason, that's not how I remember it.

O'Keefe was suspended for the balance of the playoffs. This was regardless of how many games the Colts played in the playoffs.

However, it was announced at the same time that should the Colts advance to the Memorial Cup, O'Keefe would be allowed to participate in the tournament. Technically, the suspension wasn't lifted -- he had served his suspension in its entirety.

As for the lifting of the suspension of Anthony Stolarz, I do....and don't agree with it.

Do in the sense that the Knights would have to field the best possible team in the tournament. Stolarz is a part of that 'best' team.

I don't know how this league gets so lost in the woods... one bad move... leads to another... leads to another. A) The Knights shouldn't be playing in this tournament. Period. They lost. B) Anthony Stolarz received a deserved eight game suspension and therefore should be serving eight full games. Players who got there by playing by the rules should be the ONLY players playing... and only the teams that worked their way into this tournament should be playing in it. Plain and simple.

Exactly how many people . . . in London are going to pay even $500 for a Memorial Cup ticket package when the Knights aren't guaranteed to be playing.

This tournament has and always will be about money and even when there was no host team, someone put in some simpleton rule about being able to bring a netminder to the tournament with you from another team.

There are so many teams in thei history of this tournament that have won or been affected by other teams that have gone in with rest and time to heal injuries, that much of the history of the Memorial Cup has been bastardized.

At least teams like Kitchener '84, and Soo '93 did something to merit hosting he Cup (I'm purposely not including Oshawa, since they walked in the front door in '87).

This thing is about money. The other thing it's about is a mess of a tournament that you get with 3 teams and a double-round-robin. You can very easily end up with everyone tied with 2-2 records and eliminate the worst goals-for-against and the other two play in the finals. Encouraging running up scores and blowouts.

I think that those whom regard the Memorial Cup as the ultimate prize and those who don't win it as losers are missing the mark. It's simply a quick exhibition tournament that anyone can win. That's hardest to win when it's not located in your league. It's a cherry on top to me, and nothing more. You want to be best against your peers (the guys you've played the whole season with and against - not some random teams that just happen to have players in the same age group and skill level) that may have played in a league much easier or harder than your own league.

Eagle Vision wrote:This tournament has and always will be about money and even when there was no host team, someone put in some simpleton rule about being able to bring a netminder to the tournament with you from another team.

I don't disagree about the money thing. Money is the only reason I can see that London was awarded a Cup just 9 years after having hosted it. Next year, Quebec gets it again, just 12 years after their last winning bid. Nevertheless, I will be there.. again. The competitiveness of the team is at least partially a false argument. Any decent Junior organization will take that host job and make the deals necessary to be competitive. If they can't or don't, well, it comes down to the rightful League champs, as it should.

As for goaltenders, I remember that Ottawa took Pat Riggin to New West for the 1977 Cup. It was a double round-robin with no TV here. I can remember listening to the Ottawa games on the radio and wondering if I'd make it in to work the next day. The issue of emergency goaltenders has always been a problem, what with injuries and... suspensions. In Minor Hockey, the rules for HC tournaments provide for an emergency replacement from the host organization.

The panel should have read some of the geniuses in this thread for the answer. How could it possibly be fair not to spring a convict a few years early from hockey jail? The homers need the best team possible to compete!

Darryl Sutter to Jerome Iginla one night in Montreal..."Did you bring your dress tonight? No? Well you shouldve because you're playing like a woman."
Belleville Bulls 9
London Knights 2

With the Oshawa Generals Bobby and the lads faced the Edmonton Oil Kings who added three top players to the Memorial Cup in 1966 and didn't the Portland Winterhawks dredge up Mike Vernon in 1983. Again the rules allowed it. I did not see the Stolarz offence. I just have no faith in Branch/Baker.

the croc wrote:With the Oshawa Generals Bobby and the lads faced the Edmonton Oil Kings who added three top players to the Memorial Cup in 1966 and didn't the Portland Winterhawks dredge up Mike Vernon in 1983. Again the rules allowed it. I did not see the Stolarz offence. I just have no faith in Branch/Baker.

For what it's worth, I did see the infraction and it was no big deal. 2 minute minor at best. Not worthy of a suspension let along 8 games. In fact the only thing about this whole deal that was worse than the 8 game suspension is the fact that this discussion has gone on for 6 pages. It's sad what this site has become.

Congrats to Jake Paterson for being the best #2 star in the history of #2 stars.

the croc wrote:With the Oshawa Generals Bobby and the lads faced the Edmonton Oil Kings who added three top players to the Memorial Cup in 1966 and didn't the Portland Winterhawks dredge up Mike Vernon in 1983. Again the rules allowed it. I did not see the Stolarz offence. I just have no faith in Branch/Baker.

For what it's worth, I did see the infraction and it was no big deal. 2 minute minor at best. Not worthy of a suspension let along 8 games. In fact the only thing about this whole deal that was worse than the 8 game suspension is the fact that this discussion has gone on for 6 pages. It's sad what this site has become.

Controversy is like a car wreck, everyone can't help but look. This situation is a perfect example of an ongoing problem with the OHL and yet something that Knights fans will fight tooth and nail against anyone who dare suggesting exists; LONDON BIAS. Every time Branch gives London a favour expect a long discussion. Plenty of non-Knights fans hate it while Knights fans seem to continue living in their bubble and pretend the league is run fairly.